On 2/7/06 5:54 PM, "wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org"
<wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org> wrote:
From: Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:58:03 -0500
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] No more blocking people for who they *are*?
W. Guy Finley wrote:
What is staring to kill me is that people feel
hey have a RIGHT to edit
Wikipedia. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege and if you demonstrate you're a
dolt and can't handle that then there should be no question your ability to
edit should be revoked for a set period of time or indefinitely. We're
talking about a user here who's vast majority of time has been spent putting
all the "funny" boxes on his user page and embarrassing the good name of a
rock and roll legend.
I don't think anyone is arguing that there is a fundamental right to
edit Wikipedia. Rather, the claim is that Wikipedia's mission of
writing a neutral, high-quality encyclopedia is not well served by
excessive policing of users to cull the ones who express opinions deemed
"embarrassing". It seems more useful to limit banning to the cases
where a user is actually disrupting the process of writing an
encyclopedia, e.g. by edit-warring or spamming.
-Mark
Stupendous, molesting children is "embarrassing". Don't think I could have
seen a bigger understatement or marginalization of the issue all day. This
just in "American Bishops Find Pedophiliac Priests to be
'embarrassing'"
Yeah, that would go over well.
Oh, and how is a wheel war amongst several admins, intervention by Jimbo and
a speedy arb case NOT considered a disruption? All of this because a few
people thought something as sick as this was funny.
--Guy (User:Wgfinley)